I can understand why in undeveloped ones, but doesn’t unemployment in a developed country mean “everything is covered we literally can’t find a job for you.”?
Shouldn’t a developed country that indeed can’t find jobs for its citizen also have the productivity to feed even the unemployed? is the problem just countries not having a system like universal basic income or is there something else going on here?
In: 1275
*10 percent of Americas are unemployed.*
*I’m more impressed that 90 percent of Americans are employed.*
– Daniel Tosh
Because we live under a system of global Capitalism, where profit is ***the*** motivation.
It’s vastly more profitable for some in our global society to produce with as few workers as possible, and to allow anyone else to starve.
There’s no profit in altruism, even if it’s demonstrably better and less costly for society *as a whole*, to take care of everyone’s needs (assuming in your example this is possible but not done) but it’s specifically *not* Better for the shareholders, so it doesn’t happen.
I am economist and actually work with this stuff, so I think I have some knowledge.
There are several issues at work here.
The first thing is friction. New people enter the work force, people get laid off or fired for various reasons, and it takes some time to find a new job. This is called frictional unemployment and generally isn’t a problem as long as there are systems in place to make sure these people don’t loose to much income during the unemployment, which most often only lasts a few months.
Then there is a large group of people who are unable to get lasting employment due to health issues, social issues or generally being fuck ups. Most developed countries have insurance systems for the people who are to sick to work, but you will find people who are too sick to get and keep a job, but to healthy to be provided for by society. Alcohol or drug abuse often makes you ineligible for insurances, so they go into the unemployment statistic even though they might also have health issues. There are people who dropped out of high school to smoke weed and don’t have the qualifications, references or motivation to keep a job for longer periods of time. They do odd jobs and live off the wages and benefits, and have a hard time breaking that circle. Some people are just awkward, some are racist and some can’t get to bed in time in the evening because Call of Duty is too fun, and all those behaviors can make you loose your job. (Edit to add: the difference between being a fuck up or having a psychiatric diagnosis is often a fine line).
Then there are the older people who lack relevant education. They might have worked their whole life in one profession, and that profession hardly exists anymore. There are still 50 year olds who really can’t use a computer because they have never had to, and in that situation it’s hard to find a new job. Technological development has made a lot of jobs largely irrelevant, such as lawn mowing. If your in the later stage of your work life, it can be very hard to get a new education and a new job, if the employer realizes that you will only work for four or five years staring with zero experience, and then retire.
Another group are those who lost their jobs during a m economic downturn (and we have had quite a few of those the last twenty years). They will often have a hard time finding a job until the economy turns upward again, and by that time they might have been unemployed for a couple of years. Generally, the longer you have been unemployed, the harder it is to find a job. Self esteem drops like a mobster with concrete feet in a harbor, and employers aren’t very willing to take chances because it can be hard for them to tell the difference between unemployment due to economic downturn and due to being part of group 2 (see above). Long term unemployment will also often move people into group 2, because life as unemployed often sucks.
Then there are political reasons.
Left wing politicians believe that benefits that bridge the gap between jobs, tax funded second chances in education, social programs and tax funded employment to get back in the saddle can help get unemployment down. They base this on the idea that most people want to work and spending tax money to help them get a job is an investment that will succeed more often than not.
Right wing politicians think your unemployment isn’t my problem, and that too generous benefits will make people choose to not work because the difference in income between benefits and wages becomes too small. They also often believe that long term or recurring unemployment is due to being a fuck up, and that kind of behavior shouldn’t be funded with tax money.
Modern economic theory agrees with the right wing. Practical experience agrees with the left wing.
I love all these ELI5 posts stumbling onto the fact that the economy is rigged to funnel the majority of wealth to handful of oligarchs. To answer the question, yes, there is more than enough food and housing to go around, and we could feed, house, and care for (medically, etc.) every single homeless person in America TOMORROW if we chose to prioritize that over putting more money into Jeff Bezos’ (EDIT: and a bunch of other beyond-rich people) pockets.
Very good thought and I think you’re right, a developed country should be able to handle this.
It would require that companies pay their taxes though. Increased profit margins, for example, due to higher automation levels, would leave lots of people unemployed. If some of the potential tax money was used to pay for these workers though it could help in making a transition and/or help these people do something that’s necessary to the public but badly paid.
Basically it’s a form of socialism. Getting this right could solve all kinds of problems, getting it wrong means someone else will be living a good life somewhere else.
Latest Answers